Let's survey Lloyd-Jones's answers to the objections in his day to the ideas importance of preaching.

The Doctor points out how in Acts 6 the church faced crisis over the support of widows in the early church. The ministry of mercy to the needs of the poor in Their community was quite important and Necessary. But notice why the apostles put some new leaders over it. They did it So They Could Devote Themselves to "prayer and the ministry of the Word" (Acts 6:4). That was the primary thing, and That was what the apostles, the main leaders of the church, had to give Themselves to. The Doctor points to Jesus' own ministry, Especially to places where, under pressure to do more miracles, That says what I've came to do was preach Primarily (eg Mark 1:38). Jesus' miracles were wonderful-they Helped People with disease and suffering-yet reconciled people to God what was belief in the message and work of Jesus.

Many voices were saying in D.M. Lloyd-Jones' day that the older approach to preaching was too monological, information-driven, inspirational, and authoritative. Today that same charge is being made. Today's critics have in mind not only the older traditional forms of expository preaching (think James Boice and Charles Stanley) but also the newer, inspirational, practical talks of "seeker-driven" spectacle churches.

I recently was asked to write a short essay on D.M. Lloyd-Jones' book of lectures Preaching and Preachers which Zondervan is slated to re-issue in 2012. This afforded me an opportunity to re-read the book and to discover that I had been more helped and shaped by it than I had remembered. Most of what I discovered would not fit in the essay and so I decided to spread a bit more of it out in some blog posts.

In his unpublished biography of his brother C. S. Lewis, W. H. “Warnie” Lewis related how in late 1951 his brother received a letter from Prime Minister Winston Churchill. In it, Churchill offered to recommend him for a C.B.E. (Commander of the British Empire). 

In Japan, in Western Europe, and in Russia, the birth-rate has fallen precipitously, to below replacement levels. If this does not change, the economic and cultural impact will be very great on those nations. Many have pointed out that interest in child-bearing is lowest in the most secular countries and sectors of society, while it is the highest in the most religious countries. Why is this? One explanation is that more educated people put off child-rearing until later in life and that means fewer children. However, educated religious people have more children than educated secular people, and therefore the socio-economic answer isn't the most basic answer. I don't think anyone can be completely sure that they have a handle on this complex phenomenon, but I think it creates an interesting backdrop for the consideration of the unique Christian view of the family.